© 2003 by European Society of Cardiology
Atrial fibrillation and heart failure
Department of Cardiology, San Filippo Neri Hospital via Martinotti, 20, 00135 Rome, Italy
Manuscript submitted 25 May 2004. Accepted after revision 28 June 2004.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 06 33062294; fax: +39 06 33062489. E-mail addresses: m.santini{at}rmnet.it (M. Santini), renatopietroricci{at}tin.it (R. Ricci).
Key Words: heart failure, atrial fibrillation, antiarrhythmic drug therapy, overdrive cardiac pacing, cardiac resynchronization
 |
Introduction |
|---|
 Top Introduction Device therapy for atrial...Atrial fibrillation in patients...Cardiac resynchronization...Toward a universal deviceCost analysisReferences |
|---|
Atrial fibrillation (AF) and congestive heart failure (CHF) are the new epidemics of the third millennium due to ageing of the population and the success of new therapies for acute cardiac illnesses that, in the past, were fatal. The interactions between AF and CHF are only partially understood, and the effectiveness of drugs as well as that of non-pharmacological interventions remains often disappointing. Furthermore, few studies have been planned with a view to evaluate specifically the combined clinical setting of atrial tachyarrhythmias and CHF.
Antiarrhythmic drugs have been widely used in preparation for cardioversion of AF and maintenance of sinus rhythm, though they have a limited and, usually, temporary efficacy [1]
. Furthermore, in patients suffering from CHF, the choice is limited to class III drugs (mainly amiodarone) in view of the adverse cardiovascular effects of class I drugs. Noteworthy new frontiers in the pharmacological treatment of these patients are angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [2] and angiotensin-1 receptor blockers [3], which may prevent AF by unloading the left atrium and by preventing electrical remodelling and interstitial fibrosis via a direct action on atrial myocytes.
|
Device therapy for atrial fibrillation in congestive heart failure |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionDevice therapy for atrial...Atrial fibrillation in patients...Cardiac resynchronization...Toward a universal deviceCost analysisReferences |
|---|
The limitations of antiarrhythmic drug therapy have prompted the growing use of device therapy to treat patients with refractory AF. The antiarrhythmic benefits of atrial or dual chamber pacing, as opposed to single chamber ventricular pacing, in reducing the rates of AF recurrences and in slowing the progression to permanent AF have been established in large prospective trials which enroled patients with either sinus node disease or mixed conventional indications for permanent pacing [4–
9]. In this respect, the impact of ventricular pacing on haemodynamic function is a major consideration. Physiological pacing by a sequential dual chamber system and an optimised, individually programmed, atrio-ventricular (AV) delay may contribute major improvements in haemodynamic function and clinical outcome, mainly in the presence of CHF [7–9]. On the other hand, asynchronous ventricular activation by right ventricular (RV) apical pacing may be the cause of major inter- and/or intraventricular mechanical dyssynchrony, which may depress haemodynamic function and myocardial metabolism [10]. The prolongation of isovolumic contraction and relaxation times may critically shorten diastolic filling and lower the cardiac output. Furthermore, the delayed activation of the left ventricular (LV) lateral wall may delay its contraction past the closure of the aortic valve, such that it not only fails to contribute to stroke volume, but also interferes with diastolic filling [11]. Programming an AV delay longer than the spontaneous interval may prevent unnecessary ventricular pacing. However, a long AV delay is associated with long device atrial refractory periods and may cause competitive atrial pacing, which may induce AF. Furthermore, despite the programming of a long AV delay, the percentage of ventricular pacing may remain high with dual chamber pacing systems [12]. It was recently reported that the incidence of AF at a mean follow-up of nearly 3 years was significantly lower with AAI (7.4%) than with DDD pacing, even with the programming of a long AV delay (DDD with long AV delay = 17.5%; DDD with short AV delay = 23.5%, P = 0.03 versus AAI) [13]. Algorithms have been introduced to limit ventricular pacing, while preserving back-up pacing in case of AV block, and are currently being refined [14].
The adverse effects of RV pacing could theoretically be prevented by selecting alternative RV pacing sites, which may mitigate the degree of ventricular dyssynchronization compared with apical pacing. Interventricular septum and RV outflow tract pacing have been tested clinically with inconsistent results [15,16]. The role of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) to prevent AF in patients with CHF, standard indications for permanent pacing, and in need of consistent ventricular pacing will be studied in the near future.
Dual chamber defibrillators with atrial antitachycardia functions, including physiological pacing, pacing prevention algorithms, antitachycardia pacing therapies and low energy internal cardioversion have been effective in the management of spontaneous atrial tachyarrhythmias in recipients of devices implanted for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias [17–19], as well as in patients whose sole indication for device implantation was symptomatic drug refractory atrial tachyarrhythmias [20]. In contrast to a stand-alone atrial defibrillator, which has only been implanted in patients with structurally normal hearts [21], the new devices can be used in patients with CHF since ventricular defibrillation back-up is available to treat life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias. In clinical studies enroling patients with drug refractory AF, device therapy was associated with a higher quality of life and lower rates of hospitalizations [22]. Furthermore, a long-term reduction in AF burden was observed in patients who were cardioverted soon after the onset of a tachyarrhythmia.
In patients with CHF, automatic antitachycardia pacing and early cardioversion of AF of recent onset may prevent acute cardiac decompensation and alleviate symptoms. Arrhythmia-induced atrial remodelling may be prevented, followed by a secondary decrease in AF recurrences [23]. Controlled studies in this field are to be encouraged.
|
Atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and ventricular tachyarrhythmias |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionDevice therapy for atrial...Atrial fibrillation in patients...Cardiac resynchronization...Toward a universal deviceCost analysisReferences |
|---|
AF is a highly prevalent arrhythmia, before or after device implantation, in patients with CHF who are also candidates for implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) [24]
. Overall, >50% of patients are expected to experience AF during the life of an ICD [25]. AF may lead to major adverse events, including inappropriate shocks [26], induction of ventricular tachyarrhythmias [27], haemodynamic impairment, thromboembolic events or acute myocardial infarction. Furthermore, AF is an independent predictor of adverse prognosis in this population [28,29]. In this clinical setting, the benefits expected of dual chamber ICDs equipped with atrial antitachycardia functions include relief of symptoms and limitation of adverse events such as stroke, thromboembolism and recurrent hospitalizations, improvement in haemodynamic function, prevention of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation triggered by atrial tachyarrhythmias, fewer inappropriate shocks, and need for fewer antiarrhythmic drugs. The value of systematic implantation of ICDs with atrial antitachycardia pacing capability in all patients with CHF and class I device indications and histories of AF, or at risk of atrial tachyarrhythmias, should be examined in prospective studies.
|
Cardiac resynchronization therapy: perspectives |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionDevice therapy for atrial...Atrial fibrillation in patients...Cardiac resynchronization...Toward a universal deviceCost analysisReferences |
|---|
CRT, though introduced recently, is already playing a prominent role among non-pharmacological therapies of refractory CHF associated with cardiac dyssynchrony. It is noteworthy that all published studies consistently report the immediate relief of oedema, dyspnoea and fatigue, greater general well-being, as well as, in the long-term, a decrease in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, increase in exercise capacity and maximal oxygen uptake, improvement in quality of life, and need for fewer hospitalizations and number of days spent in the hospital [30–
34]. A meta-analysis of published studies [35] and preliminary data from the COMPANION trial (Heart Failure Society of America Scientific Meetings, September 2003 – Late Breaking Trials) suggest a favourable effect of device implantation on survival, a question to be answered by the results of the ongoing CARE-HF trial, which has enroled >800 patients [36]. Several other issues, however, need to be addressed, including the selection of appropriate candidates to eliminate the "non-responders" phenomenon, the choice of optimal, individual pacing site, and the role of single site versus multisite LV pacing. Furthermore, the expansion of indications to patients in the lower NYHA functional classes to prevent disease progression, or patients with conventional pacing indications and depressed LV function should be studied. Technological improvements facilitating the implantation of CRT systems will probably expand the indications. Finally, prospective studies to evaluate the impact of CRT on the incidence of AF should be strongly encouraged. |
Toward a universal device |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionDevice therapy for atrial...Atrial fibrillation in patients...Cardiac resynchronization...Toward a universal deviceCost analysisReferences |
|---|
Combining CRT with ICD is a distinct issue related to cardiac pacing in CHF. One may hypothesise that simultaneous RV and LV pacing could prevent reentry by reducing the ventricular activation time and eliminate markedly delayed activation of the LV postero-lateral wall. On the other hand, LV epicardial pacing via the coronary venous system could be proarrhythmic by increasing myocardial electrical instability. While this issue remains unsettled, preliminary data suggest a neutral effect of CRT on the development of spontaneous ventricular tachyarrhythmias [35,
37,38]. Nevertheless, considering the high risk of sudden cardiac death to which patients with CHF are exposed, the liberal use of ICD back-up seems appropriate in CRT. Data from the COMPANION and SCD-HEFT trials [39], presented recently, strongly support this position. Needless to say, ICD back-up is mandatory in patients with class I or II ICD indications [24]. The introduction and a broad application of a universal device designed for patients with CHF and AF, which will offer CRT, prevention and termination of atrial tachyarrhythmias, including low energy cardioversion, and ICD therapy, is expected in the next few years. Powerful diagnostic functions will allow the continuous monitoring of arrhythmias and clinical status, facilitating the individual prescription of pharmacological regimens. Drug delivery systems to treat emergencies, such as pulmonary oedema or electrical storms, will be incorporated in implantable devices.
|
Cost analysis |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionDevice therapy for atrial...Atrial fibrillation in patients...Cardiac resynchronization...Toward a universal deviceCost analysisReferences |
|---|
In this evolving environment, organisational and economical issues will be critical. A strong relationship between heart failure specialists and electrophysiologists will be crucial. Detailed cost–benefit analyses will be needed for each new therapeutic strategy. The increasing costs of treatments and rapidly growing numbers of patients will represent a major challenge for health care providers. The information stored in device memories and automatic delivery of drug or electrical therapies may become the main tools to prevent the acute manifestations of the disease and limit the rates of hospitalization. This, ultimately, may render device therapy cost-effective.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionDevice therapy for atrial...Atrial fibrillation in patients...Cardiac resynchronization...Toward a universal deviceCost analysisReferences |
|---|
[1] Suttorp MJ, Kingma JH, Koomen EM, van't Hof A, Tijssen JG, Lie KI. Recurrence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or flutter after successful cardioversion in patients with normal left ventricle function. Am J Cardiol 1993; 71: 710–713.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[2] Ueng KC, Tsai TP, Yu WC, et al. Use of enalapril to facilitate sinus rhythm maintenance after external cardioversion of long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. Results of a prospective and controlled study. Eur Heart J 2003; 24: 2090–2098.
[3] Hernandez-Madrid A, Bueno MG, Rebollo JG, et al. Use of irbesartan to maintain sinus rhythm in patients with long-lasting persistent atrial fibrillation: a prospective and randomized study. Circulation 2002; 39:106 331–336.
[4] Andersen HR, Nielsen JC, Thomsen PE, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients from a randomised trial of atrial versus ventricular pacing for sick-sinus syndrome. Lancet 1997; 350: 1210–1216.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[5] Skanes AC, Krahn AD, Yee R, et al. Progression to chronic atrial fibrillation after pacing: The Canadian Trial of Physiologic Pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 38: 167–172.
[6] Lamas GA, Lee KL, Sweeney MO, et al. Mode Selection Trial in Sinus-Node Dysfunction. Ventricular pacing or dual-chamber pacing for sinus-node dysfunction. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 1854–1862.
[7] Hesselson AB, Parsonnet V, Bernstein AD, Bonavita GJ. Deleterious effects of long-term single-chamber ventricular pacing in patients with sick sinus syndrome: the hidden benefits of dual-chamber pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992; 19: 1542–1549.[Abstract]
[8] Frielingsdorf J, Gerber AE, Dur P, Vuilliomenet A, Bertel O. Importance of an individually programmed atrioventricular delay at rest and on work capacity in patients with dual chamber pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1994; 17: 37–45.[CrossRef][Medline]
[9] Frielingsdorf J, Deseo T, Gerber AE, Bertel O. A comparison of quality-of-life in patients with dual chamber pacemakers and individually programmed atrioventricular delays. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1996; 19: 1147–1154.[CrossRef][Medline]
[10] Harper GR, Pina IL, Kutalek SP. Intrinsic conduction maximizes cardiopulmonary performance in patients with dual chamber pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1991; 14: 1787–1791.[CrossRef][Medline]
[11] Ansalone G, Giannantoni P, Ricci R, Trambaiolo P, Fedele F, Santini M. Doppler myocardial imaging to evaluate the effectiveness of pacing sites in patients receiving biventricular pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 39: 489–499.
[12] Nielsen JC, Pedersen AK, Mortensen PT, Andersen HR. Programming a fixed long atrioventricular delay is not effective in preventing ventricular pacing in patients with sick sinus syndrome. Europace 1999; 1: 113–120.
[13] Nielsen JC, Kristensen L, Andersen HR, Mortensen PT, Pedersen OL, Pedersen AK. DDDR versus AAIR: a randomized comparison of atrial and dual chamber pacing in 177 consecutive patients with sick sinus syndrome: echocardiographic and clinical outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 42: 614–623.
[14] Mayumi H, Kohno H, Yasui H, Kawachi Y, Tokunaga K. Use of automatic mode change between DDD and AAI to facilitate native atrioventricular conduction in patients with sick sinus syndrome or transient atrioventricular block. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1996; 19: 1740–1747.[CrossRef][Medline]
[15] Buckingham TA, Candinas R, Duru F, et al. Acute hemodynamic effects of alternate and combined site pacing in patients after cardiac surgery. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1999; 22: 887–893.[CrossRef][Medline]
[16] Giudici MC, Thornburg GA, Buck DL, et al. Comparison of right ventricular outflow tract and apical lead permanent pacing on cardiac output. Am J Cardiol 1997; 79: 209–212.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[17] Adler SW 2nd, Wolpert C, Warman EN, Musley SK, Koehler JL, Euler DE,. for the Worldwide Jewel AF Investigators. Efficacy of pacing therapies for treating atrial tachyarrhythmias in patients with ventricular arrhythmias receiving a dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Circulation 2001; 104: 887–892.
[18] Friedman PA, Dijkman B, Warman EN, Xia HA, Mehra R, Stanton MS, et al. Atrial therapies reduce atrial arrhythmia burden in defibrillator patients. Circulation 2001; 104: 1023–1028.
[19] Ricci R, Pignalberi C, Disertori M, et al. Efficacy of a dual chamber defibrillator with atrial antitachycardia functions in treating spontaneous atrial tachyarrhythmias in patients with life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Eur Heart J 2002; 23: 1471–1479.
[20] Gold MR, Sulke N, Schwartzman DS, Mehra R, Euler DE. for the Worldwide Jewel AF-Only Investigators. Clinical experience with a dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator to treat atrial tachyarrhythmias. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2001; 12: 1247–1253.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[21] Wellens HJ, Lau CP, Lüderitz B, et al. Atrioverter: an implantable device for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. Circulation 1998; 98: 1651–1656.
[22] Ricci R, Quesada A, Pignalberi C, et al. Dual defibrillator improves quality of life and decreases hospitalizations in patients with drug refractory atrial fibrillation. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2004; 10: 85–92.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[23] Wijffels MC, Kirchhof CJ, Dorland RD, Allessie MA. Atrial fibrillation begets atrial fibrillation. A study in awake chronically instrumented goats. Circulation 1995; 92: 1954–1968.
[24] Gregoratos G, Abrams J, Epstein AE, et al. ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 guideline update for implantation of cardiac pacemakers and antiarrhythmia devices—summary article. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/NASPE Committee to Update the 1998 Pacemaker Guidelines). Circulation 2002; 106: 2145–2161.
[25] Schmitt C, Montero M, Melichercik J. Significance of supraventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients with implanted pacing cardioverter defibrillators. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1994; 17: 295–302.[CrossRef][Medline]
[26] Grimm W, Flores BF, Marchlinski FE. Electrocardiographically documented unnecessary, spontaneous shocks in 241 patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1992; 15: 1667–1673.[CrossRef][Medline]
[27] Marchlinski FE, Callans DJ, Gottlieb CD, Schwartzman D, Preminger M. Benefits and lessons learned from stored electrogram information in implantable defibrillators. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 1995; 6: 832–851.[Web of Science][Medline]
[28] Pinski SL, Yao Q, Epstein AE, et al. Determinants of outcome in patients with sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias: the antiarrhythmics versus implantable defibrillators (AVID) study registry. Am Heart J 2000; 139: 804–813.[Web of Science][Medline]
[29] Wolf PA, Mitchell JB, Baker CS, Kannel WB, D'Agostino RB. Impact of atrial fibrillation on mortality, stroke and medical costs. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158: 229–234.
[30] Gras D, Mabo P, Tang T, et al. Multisite pacing as a supplemental treatment of congestive heart failure: preliminary results of the Medtronic Inc. InSync Study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1998; 21: 2249–2255.[CrossRef][Medline]
[31] Braunschweig F, Linde C, Gadler F, Rydén L. Reduction of hospital days by biventricular pacing. Eur J Heart Fail 2000; 2: 399–406.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[32] Zardini M, Tritto M, Bargiggia G, et al. on behalf of the InSync Italian Registry Investigators. The InSync Italian Registry: analysis of clinical outcome and considerations on the selection of candidates to left ventricular resynchronization. Eur Heart J 2000; 2:Suppl. J J16–J22.
[33] Cazeau S, Leclercq C, Lavergne T, et al. Effects of multisite biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and intraventricular conduction delay. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 873–880.
[34] Abraham WT, Fisher WG, Smith AL, et al. for the MIRACLE study group. Cardiac resynchronization in chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 1845–1853.
[35] Bradley DJ, Bradley EA, Baughman KL, et al. Cardiac resynchronization and death from progressive heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2003; 289: 730–740.
[36] Cleland JG, Daubert JC, Erdmann E, et al. The CARE-HF study (Cardiac REsynchronization in Heart Failure study): rationale, design and end-points. Eur J Heart Fail 2001; 3: 481–489.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[37] Walker S, Levy TM, Rex S, et al. Usefulness of suppression of ventricular arrhythmia by biventricular pacing in severe congestive cardiac failure. Am J Cardiol 2000; 86: 231–233.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[38] Higgins SL, Yong P, Scheck D, et al. VENTAK CHF Investigators. Biventricular pacing diminishes the need for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36: 824–827.
[39] Klein H, Auricchio A, Reek S, Geller C. New primary prevention trials of sudden cardiac death in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: SCD-HEFT and MADIT-II. Am J Cardiol 1999; 83: 91D–97D.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||